Sunday, June 25, 2017
Religion plus leads to violence. So does atheism plus.
I don't mean atheism plus as it was defined by some atheists a few years back. I mean atheism plus some further ideology.
Religion needs a lot of stuff added to it to support violence. You only get that path if you claim that the state should advance the interests of religion. The state, by definition, operates by force.
But you could have versions of atheism in which the state is called upon to use force to promote atheism. The argument I make on this issue is that neither atheism nor religion by itself are sufficient to promote violence, other things have to be added.
Communism was an ideology of which atheism was an essential component. It claimed that political power had to be used to achieve the revolutionary goals of communism, and the abandonment of religion was a necessary component of this purpose. It wasn't just the badness of people like Stalin or Mao as persons, their ideologies justified, in their minds, mass killings of those who opposed their political ambitions.
My argument was that religion plus a commitment to the use of the state to advance its goals leads at least potentially to violence. Religion in itself does not do that, you need a "plus." Atheism plus some other things built into an atheistic ideology also leads to violence. And if you just compare death tolls, atheism actually comes out a whole lot higher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Yep, Atheism plus something else can be deadly, and it has been way too many times. But it's also always because there's something else. Just like religions.
Therefore, it's irrelevant to bring up religion when it comes to government or the rule of law or whatever form of social contracts we get into. Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are not indicators of malice nor integrity, or anything else.
Religion all by itself has often been and often remains inherently violent.
In Western culture god shows the way to violence by practicing genocide when he gets dissatisfied with his creation doing what he knew they would do before he even created them, wiping out all but 8.
After some incestuous repopulating god perpetrates various episodes of inflicting fire, destruction, and pestilence on his creation, he then orders a little tribe to go into an inhabited land and kill everybody, except in some cases the virgin girls (gee, what do invading soldiers do with virgin girls after they has massacred everybody else?).
Fast forward to Muhammad who got that god feeling all in him and decided to attack, murder, extort, rape, enslave, and conquer.
Fast forward again to this day when Jews in Israel are again taking the land by force with the justification in their minds that god gave it to them in perpetuity.
Muslims who take the time to read their books find out quickly that to follow the example of the prophet is to attack, murder, extort, rape, enslave, and conquer.
Christians have a harder time with their violence because Jesus was kind of a peacenik but they manage to find enough violence and holy righteousness in some sort of interpretation to become convinced god is on their side in whatever they do.
And then there all the cults, spirits, and god/rulers who have led their people to war as the masses do the violent bidding of the gods.
Just to make things easier to kill and be killed you get a one way ticket to heaven doing all this holy violence which is always a good boost to get the troops to charge headlong into their deaths.
Religion doesn't need a plus to be violent, it is intrinsically violent.
Such hatred. Stardusty is in no position to talk about anyone being "intrinsically violent".
The irony is that we are all intrinsically violent, regardless of what religion we profess, or whether we profess no religion at all. It is part and parcel of being a member of fallen humanity. So "religion" is not intrinsically violent - people are.
Which is why Jesus, as the Incarnate God, is not "kind of a peacenik". He is peace (Ephesians 2:14).
Stardusty: "Religion doesn't need a plus to be violent, it is intrinsically violent."
I don't think you've thought that through, or you don't know what "intrinsic" means. We have some faulty generalization going on here, not to mention using a word (religion) that is almost useless in descriptive capacity due to how wide the umbrella is. May as well say "Ideas don't need a plus to be violent, they are intrinsically violent." Equally useful and equally true.
Point me to an example of a religious person doing something bad, I can point you to an example of non-religious violence and an example of a religious person doing something good. Skeptics don't like that, because if they have to judge on individual basis then it defeats their position, so it's easier to cast big nets that cover billions of people in thousands of different religious systems, the vast majority of which are good people who have never done violence to anyone.
Legion of Logic said...
" Point me to an example of a religious person doing something bad, "...
--Ok, the Islamic State bomber who thinks he will go to paradise for being a bomber.
The Japanese soldier who thinks his emperor is a god and thus god ordered him to rape China.
The Israeli Jew who thinks god deeded Palestine to the Jews in perpetuity by means of genocide so all methods to steal land are acceptable and even godly.
These are the result of religions that are intrinsically bad.
June 26, 2017 7:09 AM
Stardusty: "Ok"
Are you asking me to provide examples of non-religious violence? Because I said I could match examples of religious violence with non-religious violence and religious good, so non-religious things are also intrinsically bad and religions are intrinsically good, by the same standard.
Religion is intrinsically good and intrinsically bad. That is not useful, which is why I said "We have some faulty generalization going on here, not to mention using a word (religion) that is almost useless in descriptive capacity due to how wide the umbrella is. May as well say "Ideas don't need a plus to be violent, they are intrinsically violent." Equally useful and equally true."
Legion of Logic said...
" Religion is intrinsically good and intrinsically bad. That is not useful, "
--Yes it is useful, in fact essential. To many people think religion somehow cannot be bad. Obama made a point of saying no religion "no religion condones the killing of innocents", which was about the stupidest thing he said during his presidency.
Vast numbers of people agree with that asinine absurdity.
Violence is at the very core of the Abrahamic religions. Mosaic law is extremely violent and barbaric. Islam is at its core a religion of extreme violence. The Christian god is the worst of all, with violent eternal torture in store for billions.
Murder, rape, and torture permeate the Abrahamic religions to their core, each in their own vile way.
June 26, 2017 10:15 PM
OP
"Religion needs a lot of stuff added to it to support violence."
Statements like that are a symptom of, at the very lease, mass desensitization.
With all the violence perpetrated in the name of god throughout history and to this day there are masses of people in some sort of parallel universe of blindness that just don't see the blood, gore, and bodies stacked like cordwood.
God leads by example, practicing genocide to deal with his own creative failure. And what better way to find a home for his chosen people than ordering them to commit genocide? Once established on their newly blood drenched soil they can continue to practice the debauchery of Mosaic law.
Jesus was a gentler sort. He didn't bother continuing the violent ways of the Jews here on Earth, no, he will step up his game with eternal violence, torturing billions in agony for all time to come, a never ending debauchery on a cosmic scale, such is the love of Jesus.
Muhammad was not going to wait, however. He chose to bring a bit of hell to Earth and call it holy, and why not? God told him to invade, rob, murder, rape, enslave, and extort, so it is all god's will, being carried out globally every day of our present years.
You have to add stuff to religion to support violence? Wake up and smell the blood.
Stardusty,
Without using the fallacy "because some take it more seriously than others", then why are the vast majority of religious people not violent due to their religious beliefs? Unless you are using a different connotation of intrinsic than I do.
I said it above, but it bears repeating. Such hatred.
Whoever who wrote the 2 postings above Legion's latest is the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to calling out others for harboring violent tendencies. The mindset behind such rants is the mindset that brought us the League of the Godless and the gulags it supported. It was the mindset behind Pol Pot's Cambodia. It is the mindset that fuels today's North Korea. It was the mindset that inspired
Plutarco Elias Calles to murder tens of thousands of Mexican Catholics during his bloody rule of that country.
Smell the blood? The last century positively reeks of it because of the mindset of people like Stardusty.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty,
" Without using the fallacy "because some take it more seriously than others", then why are the vast majority of religious people not violent due to their religious beliefs? Unless you are using a different connotation of intrinsic than I do."
--Because we have evolved empathy. Most people really don't want to hurt other people. Mammals, even predators, in general do not kill their own species. Most people find the shedding of blood, gore, violence, and death to be revolting.
But there it is in all the blood soaked holy pages of the Torah, human sacrifice of the New Testament, Quran, and Sunnah.
The average person just can't stand all that violence so they find ways to close their eyes to the debauchery of their holy books.
June 27, 2017 5:30 AM
Stardusty: "The average person just can't stand all that violence so they find ways to close their eyes to the debauchery of their holy books."
I'm pretty sure the reason is that violence in the name of religion is categorically no different than violence for any other reason, and most people simply aren't violent, but thanks for your answer.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "The average person just can't stand all that violence so they find ways to close their eyes to the debauchery of their holy books."
" I'm pretty sure the reason is that violence in the name of religion is categorically no different than violence for any other reason, "
--Violence incited by religion is categorically different than violence arising primarily from one's pathological or sociopathic tendencies.
Religion long has been and continues to be an incitement for otherwise good people to do bad things.
Without religion, or a similar quasi-religious cult, in simplest terms, bad people do bad things, good people do good things.
Religion, or quasi-religous cults, incite good people to do bad things.
Israeli Jews and Global Muslims in particular refrain from doing bad things only by ignoring the grotesque violence mandated by their holy books.
June 27, 2017 6:53 AM
@Strawdusty,
Israeli Jews and Global Muslims in particular refrain from doing bad things only by ignoring the grotesque violence mandated by their holy books.
You claim the "holy books" of Jews and Muslims "mandate grotesque violence". Do all the people who think these books are holy agree with you?
bmiller said...
" You claim the "holy books" of Jews and Muslims "mandate grotesque violence". Do all the people who think these books are holy agree with you?"
--Only the ones who know how to read.
June 27, 2017 8:45 PM
@Strawdusty,
--Only the ones who know how to read.
Then we should be seeing all of them doing "grotesque violence" 24/7. But we don't.
Stardusty: "Violence incited by religion is categorically different than violence arising primarily from one's pathological or sociopathic tendencies."
Okay, but it is not categorically different than violence arising primarily from any other ideological foundation, political, etc.
Stardusty: "Religion long has been and continues to be an incitement for otherwise good people to do bad things."
Making it much like any other ideology.
Stardusty: "Without religion, or a similar quasi-religious cult, in simplest terms, bad people do bad things, good people do good things. Religion, or quasi-religous cults, incite good people to do bad things."
I see you drink the New Atheist kool-aid, making this assertion without a shred of credible evidence (yet you'll nitpick me on whether water freezes into ice, how consistent). Any ideology can make "good people" do "bad things" if it is couched in moral terms. However, it takes religion to make bad people do good things. See, I can assert based on observation and experience, as well, but I sure can't demonstrate that it's true. Just like New Atheists. The difference is the famous New Atheists found a bunch of gullible people to swallow their tripe and make them a lot of money.
Stardusty: "Only the ones who know how to read."
Another anti-theist selling point that bedazzles the gullible, claiming there is only one true way to read a text, claiming to be the guy who has this knowledge, and then using this "knowledge" to trash those who don't follow this money-making exegesis. Sam Harris (low hanging fruit to pick on, I know) is fond of this tactic. By describing a "religious moderate" in terms of being peaceful but not taking their religious beliefs all that seriously, he happily hops, skips, and fallacies his way into claiming to be the arbiter of what a serious religious person would believe or do.
Needless to say, there is no reason to consider anything Harris has to say on the subject of religion, just like every other New Atheist.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
--Only the ones who know how to read.
" Then we should be seeing all of them doing "grotesque violence" 24/7. But we don't."
--You obviously do not keep up on the news. Here is a compendium of what the avid readers continually do.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
June 28, 2017 5:40 AM
@Strawdusty,
" Then we should be seeing all of them doing "grotesque violence" 24/7. But we don't."
--You obviously do not keep up on the news. Here is a compendium of what the avid readers continually do.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
Like I said. " Then we should be seeing all of them doing "grotesque violence" 24/7. But we don't."
Not to mention improperly using the violent extremists of Islam to paint "religion" with a negative brush, and the unsupported claim that those who take their religion seriously are especially prone to violence within the human population.
"Religion long has been and continues to be an incitement for otherwise good people to do bad things."
The atheist-marxist regime under Staline killed 20 million, deported 28 million, 18 of which were forced to slavery in the Gulags, not counting the mass deprivations, the wars, the moral corruption of the fabric of an entire society, including the very destruction of private life. In about 30 years. The effects are still keenly felt today in Russian society. Not even the Nazi regime produced such a lasting effect, in part because it lasted only a mere 12 years.
You know what conclusion to take from this according to the Strawdusty's ilogic manual of stupidity and ignorance.
Very little violence is religious violence. To be violent, especially to commit murder, you have to be at least a temporary atheist and convince yourself there is no eternal consequence to killing someone. Even a "believer" can murder if he can, if only for a moment of passion, be an atheist. Almost all of the mundane violence is atheistic. No plus needed.
Dave Duffy said...
" To be violent, especially to commit murder, you have to be at least a temporary atheist and convince yourself there is no eternal consequence to killing someone."
--How absurd.
No, Dave, for religious violence one is convinced that the violence is what god wants. Fundamentalist Islam and Israeli Jews being the obvious modern examples of extreme violence perpetrated because the perpetrators are convinced god wants violence and will reward the perpetrator for the violence.
June 29, 2017 6:41 PM
grodrigues said...
SP "Religion long has been and continues to be an incitement for otherwise good people to do bad things."
" The atheist-marxist regime under Staline killed 20 million,"
--False dichotomy.
" You know what conclusion to take from this according to the Strawdusty's ilogic manual of stupidity and ignorance."
--Pot, meet kettle.
June 28, 2017 2:12 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" Not to mention improperly using the violent extremists of Islam"
--Violent Muslims are not extremist, they are emulating Muhammad. The Islamic State is indeed the purest form of Islam. No organization on Earth has succeeded in emulating Muhammad as well as the Islamic State.
June 28, 2017 8:30 AM
"No, Dave"
--bs
Most violence is mundane, day to day interactions with people, that has nothing to do with pleasing a god. Get a grip on the world.
Dave Duffy said...
" Most violence is mundane, day to day interactions with people,"
--How stupid.
Blowing people up and stabbing people and burning people alive and raping people in the name of god is not "mundane", it is what religious people do because they think it is godly.
June 29, 2017 8:42 PM
Goodness, Stardusty, a guy does need some good humor before heading to bed. Thanks.
My point is that even if the violent Muslims are the pure ones, it has zero bearing on what it means to be a Jew or Christian or Hindu or Wiccan or anything else except a Muslim. "Religion" is too broad a term to be useful when used as a description of a class of people. Even pointing to the darker moments within Christianity has zero bearing on the members of my Bible study - what they believed and did does not conform to what I believe and do, and I take my beliefs just as seriously as they.
I could just as easily point to communism to tarnish all left wing political ideologies, or all ideologies period.
we don't have to back religion plus we just support straight on religion,
Blowing people up and stabbing people and burning people alive and raping people in the name of god is not "mundane", it is what religious people do because they think it is godly.
It's also what communists do because they think it's atheistic, they killed 1 million people in 20th century
" The atheist-marxist regime under Staline killed 20 million,"
--False dichotomy.
>>>bull shit it;s the very same logic you are using
@Joe Hinman:
"" The atheist-marxist regime under Staline killed 20 million,"
--False dichotomy.
>>>bull shit it;s the very same logic you are using"
The biggest bs is that there is no dichotomy in what I said, false or otherwise. It is yet another laughably idiotic misreading.
Stardusty simply picks the name of a fallacy at random from the list of the eight or nine he knows. And this is about the best thing that can be said about his comments.
Joe Hinman said...
Blowing people up and stabbing people and burning people alive and raping people in the name of god is not "mundane", it is what religious people do because they think it is godly.
" It's also what communists do because they think it's atheistic, "
--Absurd, people don't scream "there is no god" before they kill.
People don't kill because they think atheism calls for killing.
People do kill because they think god calls for killing.
People wage war out of a lust for power, land, money.
They wage war to throw off the ruling government.
They wage war to get to paradise because they think god wants this war.
They do not wage war for not god.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
July 01, 2017 10:38 AM
grodrigues said...
@Joe Hinman:
"" The atheist-marxist regime under Staline killed 20 million,"
--False dichotomy.
>>>bull shit it;s the very same logic you are using"
" The biggest bs is that there is no dichotomy in what I said,"
--The dichotomy is this
Atheist therefore millions killed
Not atheist therefore not millions killed
" false or otherwise."
--Your reasoning is false because it neglects a third choice
Lust for power therefore millions killed
Religion isn't like atheism. Religion itself provides incentive. Islamic fundamentalists kill people because they think god wants those people killed and because they think god will reward them in paradise.
July 01, 2017 12:35 PM
Typical New Atheist depending on fallacies to make his point.
"Islamic fundamentalist, therefore Christian in Bible study dangerous."
Sad.
Look, it is as easy as pie to find religious people doing bad things in the name of religion. Sadly, ISIS and those like ISIS provide headline examples. But then you have to make the argument that the likes of Khizr Khan and Hakeem Olajuwon, two Muslims who don't practice violence and oppose violence, are somehow bad Muslims who don't know how to read. Good luck with that. Do you know that there are four schools of Sunni interpretation and two of Shiite interpretation? These concern how you go from the Qur'an to actual practice. But then, maybe the travel ban is OK after all.
And that's just Islam. To say that the only faithful version of Islam is the terrorist version strikes me as just silly.
And then you have to show that somehow religion is the causal factor that produces the violence. So, how do you explain violence in the interests of secular ideologies, which have a far higher death toll than the religious ones. Atheism was not incidental to Soviet and Maoist communism, it was pretty critical to it.
"Religious" is too broad a term for reasonable people to use it as a description of a class of people or as a motivation. Saying "scents are nasty" because a skunk smells bad is equally valid. Only anti-theists use that line of "reasoning" to condemn Christians because of Muslim terrorists.
Atheists may be able to try and run from communism as a subset due to motivational power, but anti-theists are inextricably tied to it. Anti-theism is a core component of the most murderous ideology in history.
@Stardusty Psyche:
"--The dichotomy is this
Atheist therefore millions killed
Not atheist therefore not millions killed"
I never said anything approaching that or even so much as implied it. That you cannot read elementary English and lie about what other people say, in a very plain way, is your problem and your problem alone.
grodrigues said...
@Stardusty Psyche:
"--The dichotomy is this
Atheist therefore millions killed
Not atheist therefore not millions killed"
" I never said anything approaching that or even so much as implied it. "
--Oh, that's a good thing then.
You think atheism is disconnected from the killings you cited. At last we agree.
However, the same cannot be said for religious killing. People do in fact kill directly because of their religion, Islam and Judaism being the most obvious modern day examples, along with Japanese emperor worship and others in the not too distant past.
So we agree then:
Religion is a major direct cause for vast murder and mayhem in the world today.
Atheism is not.
July 02, 2017 9:00 AM
Victor Reppert said...
" Look, it is as easy as pie to find religious people doing bad things in the name of religion. Sadly, ISIS and those like ISIS provide headline examples. But then you have to make the argument that the likes of Khizr Khan and Hakeem Olajuwon, two Muslims who don't practice violence and oppose violence, are somehow bad Muslims who don't know how to read."
--They are Muslims who are ignoring the clear instructions and example of Muhammad.
" Good luck with that. Do you know that there are four schools of Sunni interpretation and two of Shiite interpretation? These concern how you go from the Qur'an to actual practice."
--A "radicalized" or "extremist" Muslim is just a Muslim who has decided to bypass the watered down teachings of his elders and go straight to the Quran and Sunnah, and possibly The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. There the young man finds all the gory details of highway robbery, invasion, mass executions, the taking of married sex slaves, multiple wives, death penalties for apostasy and homosexuality, wife beating, theocratic rule, and subjugation of the conquered through extortion and second class status.
The non-violent elders sowed the seeds for this return to fundamentalist Islam by telling the young man again and again that the words of the Quran are all from Allah, and Muhammad is the exemplary man to be emulated in all his ways.
" But then, maybe the travel ban is OK after all."
--Since 9/11 no terrorists from the banned countries have carried out attacks on US soil, and all such attacks by foreigners have been carried out by individuals not on the list.
So Trump wants to block the folks who don't attack us and let in the folks who do attack us. Brilliant.
July 02, 2017 1:09 AM
@Strawdusty,
--A "radicalized" or "extremist" Muslim is just a Muslim who has decided to bypass the watered down teachings of his elders and go straight to the Quran and Sunnah, and possibly The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq.
--Since 9/11 no terrorists from the banned countries have carried out attacks on US soil, and all such attacks by foreigners have been carried out by individuals not on the list.
So Trump wants to block the folks who don't attack us and let in the folks who do attack us. Brilliant.
One would think that if someone held all Muslims wanted to kill all infidels, then one would think that allowing in more of those who want to kill us would not be a good thing. It is truly an amazing thing to see this kind of reasoning.
Victor Reppert said...
" And that's just Islam. To say that the only faithful version of Islam is the terrorist version strikes me as just silly."
--I wish it were. Yes, I know it is hard to believe, but it is actually true that the radicalization is really just religious education. The texts are just that bad.
" And then you have to show that somehow religion is the causal factor that produces the violence."
--What does the terrorist shout before the act? God is great. This is for God.
Have you read the publications of the IS? Pick any issue at random, it is dripping with religious motivation for everything they do.
https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq-50/
For a Christian God is love. But Allah does not love the unbeliever.
Jesus said the meek shall inherit the Earth. Allah said to strike at their necks.
John 8:7 is poignant piece of beautiful literature. Allah lists the many penalties of amputations and death.
So, for the Christian it can be very difficult to accept that a major world religion in the Abrahamic family is so fundamentally violent and debauched.
" So, how do you explain violence in the interests of secular ideologies, which have a far higher death toll than the religious ones."
--Different motivations for different people.
" Atheism was not incidental to Soviet and Maoist communism,"
--The average Russian or Chinese wanted to throw off the dictatorial ruler and was taken in by a system that promised pure egalitarianism, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Marxist doctrine, written in the American civil war era, called for a temporary dictatorship as a necessary transitional stage. That is where the ruthless dictators set their hooks.
" it was pretty critical to it."
--I don't think not god motivated people to kill. People did not cry out for blood in the name of not god.
Communism simply does not work because it denies a key factor of human nature, that people work for themselves and their families, not for some broad concept of an egalitarian utopia. When the system fails to produce, people starve. When the people tire of dictatorship the ruthless dictator purges millions.
The link from Islamic texts to Islamic debauchery is direct, demonstrable, and not rationally deniable.
The disbelief in god has no demonstrable motivating effect driving people to suppress their inherent normal socialization.
Dictators do not incite their followers to kill because not god calls for killing. They invent scapegoats such as the Jews, or call for restoration of national pride, or for the defense of the nation or of the revolution.
Atheism simply is not the direct motivator to debauchery that Islam is.
July 02, 2017 1:14 AM
@Stardusty Psyche:
"You think atheism is disconnected from the killings you cited."
I never said that.
But this is pointless; you can't even stick to what I actually said, but have to fabricate lies at every turn so as to not have to recognize the major idiotic blunders you commit all the time.
grodrigues said...
@Stardusty Psyche:
"You think atheism is disconnected from the killings you cited."
" I never said that."
--Hmm, so how is atheism connected then?
But this is pointless; you can't even stick to what I actually said,
--You said "The atheist-marxist regime under Staline killed 20 million" in the context of an implied link between atheism and incitement to violence.
But you won't say what that link is.
We could also say
"The white male regime under Staline killed 20 million"
or
"The Russian regime under Staline killed 20 million"
or
"The homo sapiens regime under Staline killed 20 million"
So what? How are any of those attributes linked to the killing?
"you can't even stick to what I actually said"
--All you've done is throw out some disconnected terms and fail to support them.
July 03, 2017 3:24 AM
Dusty needs to argue for an objective morality to make his case against religion but I don't think he can pull it off.
SteveK said...
" Dusty needs to argue for an objective morality"
--I never argued for an objective morality in the sense of an absolute moral proposition or demonstrably true moral fact.
How did you get that false impression?
July 06, 2017 8:50 PM
Then none of the actions/behaviors you're talking about have resulted in a demonstrably true moral fact that needs fixing.
SteveK said...
" Then none of the actions/behaviors you're talking about have resulted in a demonstrably true moral fact"
--Indeed.
" that needs fixing."
--What does "need" mean in this context?
Do we remain paralyzed into inaction absent an absolute proof? Human beings function based on personal probability estimates, without absolute proof.
July 07, 2017 8:17 AM
How you go from texts to application is a big issue, and it was recognized in the Islamic tradition as early as the 8th Century. The violent texts seem to presuppose a context of open battle where Islamic soldiers are fighting against pagan soldiers, as in the Battle of Mecca.To use those text to justify attacking a standing target like the World Trade Centers is to take those texts out of context.
In the Christian tradition, people who get different messages from the same Scripture are operating with different hermeneutics. Let's take "Women should be silent in church." Most conservative Christians realize that the contingencies of the time and situation led Paul to make that statement, and that it would be a mistake to apply it literally to the church in the present day. But some are literal about it. Both of them can read, but they use different principles of application.
To take another example, it can easily be argued that given the way homosexuality was practiced in the Greco-Roman world, Paul had ample reason to condemn what he saw going on around him. But Christian differ as to whether these condemnations should be applied to homosexuality in general in the present day, or whether they are bound to their time and place.
There were four different schools of thought in the Sunni tradition as to how you apply the Qur'an to a different situation. One school, the Hanbalite school, was very strict and literal, but there were three others. Muslims lived in different places than Arabia, and some saw rules made for Arabia that they thought might not straightforwardly apply in, say Baghdad. But others thought this this freedom of application led to loose morals, and different Muslim came down in different places on this. But they weren't just uneducated about what their texts said.
Victor Reppert said...
"To use those text to justify attacking a standing target like the World Trade Centers is to take those texts out of context."
--I wish that were true, but the words of Allah clearly instruct in violent conquest, terror, and subjugation.
The example of Muhammad clearly demonstrate invasion, murder, robbery, rape, conquest, torture, subjugation, an extortion.
" "Women should be silent in church." Most conservative Christians realize that the contingencies of the time and situation led Paul to make that statement, and that it would be a mistake to apply it literally to the church in the present day."
--Why? Can't God inspire instructions that are applicable to all times?
" To take another example, it can easily be argued that given the way homosexuality was practiced in the Greco-Roman world, Paul had ample reason to condemn what he saw going on around him."
--The way homosexuality is practiced is that 2 men have sex with each other or 2 women has sex with each other. It was a sin from Moses to Paul, and that brackets the whole thing.
" But Christian differ as to whether these condemnations should be applied to homosexuality in general in the present day, or whether they are bound to their time and place."
--Wishful thinking by caring people who can't stand what the Bible actually says so they invent rationalizations to have it their way instead of the way of the Word.
" There were four different schools of thought in the Sunni tradition as to how you apply the Qur'an to a different situation... But they weren't just uneducated about what their texts said."
--The more one applies the texts the more oppressive and violent one becomes. Some schools make a great effort to water them down and turn a blind eye to all the violence and debauchery in the texts, but the texts remain a landmine for the young, a lurking source of religiously commanded violence.
The rationale for suicide jihad is clear, Allah promised a direct path to paradise for those who fight and die in the service of Allah. The attacks of 9/11 were done because of the promise of paradise, as these many texts clearly promise:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/suicide-bombing.aspx
July 07, 2017 11:36 AM
Post a Comment